Charity Smith
Staff Writer
In a decision many on the right are hailing as a victory for religious freedom and many on the left are condemning as oppressive and discriminatory to women, the Supreme Court decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby found that requiring family owned businesses to offer birth control was a violation of their religious liberty.
The 5-4 decision, split right down the expected party lines and which applies to two companies owned by Christian families, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, is feared to have opened the door for other companies to challenge laws that may be said to violate religious liberty.
Proponents believe that the mandate allows women equal access to affordable birth control thus reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies, which make up the single parent homes predominantly found on welfare rolls. There is also concern that expanding the definition of personhood to include corporations, thus including them under the mantle of rights of personhood, is bound to lead to some seriously sticky legal problems down the road.
Opponents of the mandate feel that the law forces them to violate their religious convictions by requiring them to contribute materially to actions that result in the death of a child. They further contend that it their right to conduct their business according to their beliefs is one that the Constitution protects and are pleased the Supreme Court has upheld that.
Hobby Lobby maintains that it asked only for an exception in covering the forms of birth control that prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting or developing normally once implanted. Currently their plans cover all testing and forms of birth control that do not fall under that specific exception.
Obamacare remains a hotly debated policy both in ideology and practical implementation. This will only add fuel to the fire for both sides of the fight.
Keep Up With PopWrapped On The Web!
Author
